CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE

 

            1967: Fall E.C. Meeting. 1967-‘68: Early Winter Tournaments. 1968: Gusikoff/Nesukaitis Eastern Open Champs.

 

            USTTA President Richard Feuerstein wasn’t present for the Nov. 10-12 E.C. Meeting at the Detroit Team’s, so Executive Vice-President Graham Steenhoven took the Chair. Bernie Tucker’s marriage this summer put an end to his Vice-Presidency, and a motion was made to accept the President’s recommendation that John Read, Chair of both the Tournament and Ranking Committees, be appointed to finish out Tucker’s term. V-P Sam Veillette sought unsuccessfully to table this motion, then asked for a ballot vote—whereupon Read was elected.

            Feuerstein had originally assigned his proxy to Read with the proviso that, if John were elected to office, Detroit’s George Buben would receive it. However, V-P Jack Carr, as Parliamentarian, urged that, because the President’s agenda had not met “the 2-week notification requirement,” it be declared illegal, and Buben’s proxy, “being too late for compliance with the By-laws,” not be allowed. Detroit’s Steenhoven, as Chair of the Meeting, overruled Parliamentarian Carr “and declared the proxy legal.” When Recording Secretary Harrison objected to this move, Carr had a roll call. Read sided with Detroit’s Jim Rushford and Veillette, and Livonia, Michigan’s Rudy Muehlenbein, USTTA Treasurer, to defeat Harrison, Carr, and Corresponding Secretary Dick Evans’s votes, so Buben’s proxy was accepted.

            The E.C. then approved the Nominations Committee’s slate for the upcoming election of USTTA officers. For President: Steenhoven vs. Harrison. As will happen, though, Rufford will withdraw from the race: “Personal circumstances quite unrelated to the USTTA prevent my running for office.” Hard to imagine, with his wife not so long ago referring to herself as a Table Tennis Widow, that there are even a few circumstances in Rufford’s life that aren’t related to table tennis. For Executive Vice-President: Feuerstein vs. Carr. For Vice President: Membership Chair Bob Rudulph vs. Photography Chair Mal Anderson. For Recording Secretary: Cyril Lederman vs. Dick Evans (who, with Read’s withdrawal, was added by the E.C.).

            Jack Carr made a “Confidential” assessment of would-be Presidents Steenhoven and Harrison, listed their pros and cons, and sent this to…who? Graham he credits with having almost single-handedly formed the Michigan TTA, then taking the lead in running U.S. Opens and Team Championships. He’s also “Quite strong at E.C. Meetings.” Yet, says Carr, “Some feel [Jack included?] he lacks the administrative ability to be president.” Graham has a “domineering manner,” and “Frequently makes far too liberal an interpretation of the rules, even to violating them when it is to his or MTTA advantage.” Graham’s “illegal 1965 petition placed Burns & Rushford on ballot, causing Bill Cross to resign as Nominating Committee Chairman.” (Carr was one of those defeated by Burns and Rushford in that 1965 election.) Jack also says, “Hicks, Rudulph, Harrison, Neuberger, Rohm, Dart, & Read have all written about [Graham’s] poor correspondence.” (Jack keeps close track of such deficiencies, eh?)

            As for the English-born Harrison, in his capacity as International Chair he “always helps U.S. teams.” At home, he did a good job as Recording Secretary, and is “Strong at E.C. Meetings.” But Jack himself is nothing if not critical—has a litany of complaints against Rufford. He was a strong advocate of the USTTA’s 1958-59 sponge ban which in Jack’s eyes was not only “illegal” but—and this is a highly questionable assumption—“probably set back U.S. caliber [of play] many years.” As Equipment Chairman, he “caused loss of some of our most important contracts (e.g. Harvard and Halex).” I’d like to hear how that happened—I think History will show Rufford, a naturalized American citizen, to be very conscientious in doing his duties.

Carr, who in a Nov. 8, 1968 letter to Leah Neuberger will describe Rufford as a “wonderful” person, reminds his readers that Harrison is a “foreigner who will not become [a] U.S. citizen because he is [a] professed agnostic”—one who at an ITTF Meeting “voted for Red China against will of USTTA.” Also, Rufford seems to “enjoy causing trouble”—he’s “Entirely too critical of others in a volunteer organization. By actual count he has criticized 36 officials causing some to resign and lose interest.” The “actual count” of course is Jack’s. What a way to spend one’s time—compiling such minutia to be used against one’s colleague!

And to what end has Jack appointed himself Arbiter this Judgment Day? To indicate that both of these Presidential candidates are flawed?…To suggest, consciously or unconsciously, that he, Jack Carr, embodies the virtues of these men? Steenhoven: “Dedicated to table tennis”; past and present committee chairman; “Great help with writing Constitution and Bylaws”; has a position of responsibility outside of table tennis. Harrison: “Dedicated to table tennis”; “Outstanding correspondent”; past and present committee chairman; “Great help with writing Constitution and Bylaws”; “Great help with writing of Advanced Table Tennis [Jack’s book]”; has a position of responsibility outside of table tennis; “Always willing to offer advice”; “Knows USTTA and ITTF rules quite well.”

A coincidence, is it, that these are all precisely Carr’s qualifications…without the flaws. Why, you’d think Jack wanted to be elected USTTA President himself…and feels he could do a better job. Perhaps in time his fellow E.C. members will come to see this and support him for the office?

Since new E.C. member Read’s responsibilities were increasing, Bob Kaminsky was asked to head the Tournament Committee. But he declined, and apparently nobody else wanted to head it either, so John stayed on as Chair, needing to take note of any up-to-date By-Law interpretation, such as a “USTTA district affiliate’s ranking system shall be used for seeding purposes at all sanctioned tournaments within its district, except three-star and four-star events.”

Neither the Treasurer, nor the Equipment Chair who’d been Tucker, now replaced by Steenhoven, could explain to Harrison “the serious decline in revenue from the sale of equipment seals.” Bernie had been the E.C. overseer for the Exhibition Committee (which no one wanted to Chair), as well as Fred Herbst’s Public Relations and TV Committees; Rushford now took E.C. responsibility for these while turning over to Read responsibility for his own Tournament and Ranking Committees. Jack Rugoff of Phoenix was named Library and Film Chair; and soon there’d be a Books Committee Chaired by R.C. Bollinger of Penn State.

            These last two appointments allow me to mention Table Tennis (77 pages, $1), the new instructional book for beginners by Rufford Harrison and racquet-minded sportswoman Margaret Varner that I reviewed in the Dec., 1967-Jan., 1968 issue of Topics. Surprisingly, at the time Varner first visited Rufford’s Newark, Delaware Club in the company of famed tennis player Margaret Osborne DuPont, she’d never played table tennis in her life. Well into the book, after advising the aspiring player to “display no bursts of temper,” the authors follow up by saying, “Be a model to others.” In this, I see Rufford’s playing hand, for in illustrating a single elimination draw from the 8^th’s on—with Harrison and Varner having worked their hard-fought way to the finals—the reader sees (in as gallant a show of sportsmanship as was ever whimsically conceived) Varner win the title, 2, 5, 3.

            Much of this anything-but-light-hearted Nov. E.C.  Meeting was taken up with bureaucratic niceties. Again and again no action was taken because of deferred items, tabled recommendations, or discussions that required further discussions for change. Meanwhile, 10 more Standing Rules were added to the 22 established since last year. The Association was cramped inward; there seemed to be little or no thought toward outward expansion.

President Feuerstein will say in his upcoming Campaign Statement for Executive Vice-President, “Most of the time of the Executive Committee members has been taken up with problems in getting our Constitution and By Laws and manuals in order, and in general just getting the USTTA properly organized [Jack Carr’s yearly preoccupations]. Within the next couple of years we should be able to put into operation many of our ideas to expand organized table tennis.” Of course this is just what Feuerstein and Harrison were saying two years ago: Feuerstein: “Now our organization has reached the point where it soon will be in proper working order”; Harrison: “[Thanks] largely to Jack Carr…[the E.C. should be enabled,] in future meetings, to devote less time to routine matters and more time to planning.” But the ideas, the plans, are few and far between.

Meanwhile, Sweeris, who cares passionately about the Sport, is fuming over the fact that even among those on the E.C. there’s a negative, even cynical attitude toward U.S. table tennis. Why, he asks, in issue after issue of the U.S. magazine, are there foreign players on the cover? In an undisguised salvo at Harrison, he questions why every issue has “two or three pages of International News in which the main object seems to be to praise European and Asian players and downgrade U.S. players.” He objects to the U.S. World Teams he’s been a part of being criticized—especially by someone who “could not score 5 points off a top player.” After all, he says, “we were spending our own money (and for some our last cent) to play for our country as best we could.” It hurts him to feel that when a youngster reads articles like these, “his opinion of table tennis is not built up—it’s destroyed” (TTT, Apr., 1968, 5).

Of course some E.C. resolutions at the Meeting were inevitable. Liability coverage would be bought for USTTA officers, and medical insurance for any U.S. team traveling abroad. E.C. officers “attending a meeting other than the summer meeting [would] receive $20 for hotel expenses” and “half of the[ir] transportation expense.”

If requested “by recreation departments, YMCA’s, boys’ clubs, and similar organizations, official USTTA affiliate memberships [would] be provided free of charge to juniors participating in events sponsored by them.” This will draw in a lot of new members, leading to adult members, will it?

The E.C. felt that “tournament sponsors should be permitted complete freedom in their choice of awards [including money prizes], and that a sum equal to the value of the intended awards should be posted in advance with the sponsoring official”; were this sum “to be a percentage of the tournament income, it should be estimated.” (The Canadian TTA would agree that their players could play in U.S. tournaments where money prizes were given.) But the E.C. took no definitive action, “the matter being left to the discretion of the National Tournament Director.” After Sweeris gave a brief presentation regarding the Professional Association he wanted to form, the E.C. took no action, but “agreed that Evans should discuss the proposed association with Sweeris, with a view to eliminating any disagreements,” then report back to them.

Evans did talk to Dell who spelled out his very specific plans for a series of money tournaments. Since Dell did not in any way want to be at odds with the USTTA, Dick recommended the E.C. work with him. Steenhoven, Harrison, and Carr were amenable, as likely others were too—but whether Sweeris, granted his initial enthusiasm, could actually bring off this ambitious project remained to be seen.

            It would seem the following Letter to the Editor in the June, 1968 Topics won’t help his cause. One of Florida’s best women players, Sperry Rademaker, aware that tournament organizers are starting to give prize money, wants everyone to take heed of the Amateur Athletic Union’s “Definition of an Amateur”:

 

“…[A]nyone who plays for money, whether or not he actually receives any, or who plays against anyone who is considered a professional, is then a professional in ALL sports. This jeopardizes the athletic career in other sports of anyone who plays table tennis.

Many of the younger players may find that they have skills in other sports, with college or Olympic potential, and they should not lose this opportunity. Tournament directors who are giving money prizes should be required to point out the consequences of professionalism in the entry information.

I should also like to briefly point out that money prizes should not be necessary to gain a large entry at a tournament. The great success of swimming and track is a good example, where thousands of athletes compete, at their own expense, for medals and (rarely) small trophies…”(11).

 

            This Letter will be followed by one from Ottawa’s Patrick Arkell in the Oct., 1968 Topics buttressing Rademaker’s points, but, like her, not defending the amateur rules, just making one aware of them:

 

“…It is, I believe, contrary to the laws of the ITTF to play for monetary gain. As I understand the laws there is a limit of 75 Swiss francs, or about $18, on the value of prizes that are given.

It is well known to followers of this and other sports that players have been banned from both national and international competition for participating outside the regulations” (13).

 

            So, because of the many who feel subject to such rules, how is Dell, or anyone else, to bring the Sport to pay-for-play prominence in the U.S.?

 

 Early Winter Tournaments

            Editor “H” Blair was very conscientious about giving the results, and what coverage was available, of tournaments all around the country. Following in his footsteps, I’ll start with his own Orlando Winter Open. Surprise here was not the mid-fiftyish Laszlo Bellak winning the Senior’s from Sam Hoffner, but of him taking the Men’s. In the semi’s from Marv Leff (whose game Laci knew so well from play at his house or at the Coral Gables University Bowling Lanes), and in the final, after being down 2-1, from Nashville’s Clay Whitelaw who’d stopped Lenny Bass in 5. In the Masters’ round-robin play-off, Whitelaw was 1^st, Leff 2^nd, Ray Mergliano 3^rd. Doubles went to the established partnership of Leff and Tommy Cohen over Mergliano and Boys U-17 winner Richard McAfee, 19 in the 5^th. Bobbye Zacco took the Women’s from 13-year-old Girls Champ Olga Soltesz. 

            The night before the Gadsden, Alabama Open, the local Association President and Tournament Chair H. Westbrook “Wes” Finlayson served as M.C. at the Club’s Annual Banquet and received a plaque for his “continuing service to the game in this area.” In Men’s play at the new East Gadsden Rec Center, Don Gaither defeated Larry Bartley in the semi’s and Defending Champion Dick Yamaoka in 5 in the final. Others in this event we’ll hear much of in the future were Ralph Kissel, Homer Brown, and Pete May.

            Tom Aldridge in a write-up in Topics tells us that at the Jan. Indiana Open the Men’s winner, D-J Lee, looked somewhat “ragged” in both ITS play, where he dropped a game to hard-hitter Clay Whitelaw, and in his Men’s matches with Sweeris in the final, and especially, I should think, in his 19, 18, 21 semi’s with Tannehill. Tom says John has “vastly improved his ability to kill a chopped ball with his forehand without the necessity of as much prior buildup or looping.” His loss in the ITS matches to U.S. #32 Deschamps, who also beat him at the USOTC’s, can be attributed to Harry’s unique hard-rubber defensive/offensive sidespin play that throws off John’s timing (Feb.-Mar., 1968, 9).

            Other winners: Men’s Doubles: Lee and Tannehill over Sweeris and U.S. #10 Hicks who in Singles went 5 with U.S. #38 Barry Rost. Women’s: Connie Sweeris over Marianne Szalay. Women’s Doubles: Sweeris and Sue Wright over Szalay and Mary McIlwain (Mary’s now living in Indianapolis). Mixed Doubles: Sweeris/Sweeris over Tannehill/Wright. Class A: Dick Evans over Leonard McNeece.

            I don’t know where the Mid-American Closed was played—but it sure had to be some “Closed” ‘cause event finalists there were from Oklahoma City, Denver, Topeka, and Missouri’s Kansas City, St. Louis, and St. Charles. U.S. #11 Joe Sokoloff had an easy time in the Men’s, giving up on the average only 12 points a game to runner-up Bob Chen who’d escaped Jerry Plybon 19 in the 5^th in the semi’s.

            The late-Nov. Open at the Hollywood Courts drew more than 150 entries for its 19 events. Jack Howard won the Men’s—over Dave Froehlich. Bobby Fields rallied to down Mark Adelman in 5, then, despite “tremendous returns,” lost in the semi’s to Froehlich, deuce in the 4^th.

In Women’s play, Pauline Walker did well to beat the precocious Wendy Hicks, 19 in the 5^th, then, from 2-0 down, was able to come back against Heather Angelinetta by winning the 3^rd at 19, and, on an adrenalin high, reach the final where, against Patty Martinez, with all eyes following her spirited play, she had a 20-20 shot at taking the 1st game. Patty, meanwhile, though she’d win the title, 3-0, almost didn’t get to the final. In the semi’s, she was down 2-1 and down in the 4th to Vallerie Bellini before smashing in four consecutive winners to turn the match in her favor.

            Other winners: Men’s Doubles: Flann and transplanted Canadian star Howie Grossman over Fields/Froehlich, deuce in the 4^th in the semi’s and Glenn Cowan/Jess Martinez deuce in the 5^th in the final. (This was far from Glenn’s worst loss about this time though, for within a month his father, Phil, would die young, at 48, after a short illness.) Mixed Doubles: Martinez/Martinez over Flann/Bellini, 14, -21, -28, 19, 19 in the semi’s, and Froehlich/Angelinetta in 4 in the final.

            Does Froehlich ever miss a California tournament? Now he’s up in Oakland, winning one final after another—over Allan Herskovich in the Singles; with George Makk (over Allan/Lee Land) in the Men’s Doubles; and with Heather Angelinetta (over George/Yuriko Kerby) in the Mixed. An easy win in the Women’s for Heather—over Jean Veit. A’s went to Azmy Ibrahim over Peter Yeung. B’s to Steve Varela over Jim Vinzant. Senior’s to Bud Barbee over Allan Herskovich. At least Allan doesn’t have to travel all those hundreds of miles home. How do they do it? Why do they do it?

            In late Nov., the British Columbia TTA held a Hungarian Memorial Open that was won by Klaus Katzenmeier over Larry Lee. The CTTA’s B.C. V-P, Chandra Madosingh, writing in Jose Tomkins’ Canadian News, speaks of a match-turning point in the 5^th when Lee was leading 12-10. Larry’s “sizzling hot shot” seemed to go by Klaus but he chased it down “twenty feet to return it with a tremendous fore-arm top spin that bounced on the net and then caught the ½ inch white line at the other end of the table.” After that, returning “nearly everything,” he went on to win 21-16 (Mar., 1968, 7-8). I must say it seems ridiculous to me that the Canadian Association considered Lee to have Insufficient Data and so didn’t rank him for the ’67-‘68 season. In addition to his B.C. play, he came East for the CNE, won the Sarnia and Quebec Opens, and was 28-1 at the Montreal Winter Games. 

            The CTTA Saskatchewan V-P, Eric King, won the Jan. Saskatoon Closed. Art Werier, CTTA Manitoba V-P, writes that their Association held its first tournament at the new St. James Civic Centre in Winnipeg. In Men’s A’s, perennial runner-up Hans Hirsch upset, 17-in-the-3^rd, longtime Defending Champion Frank Hodl. Men’s B’s was won by Balint Meszaros over Art Koberstein.

            The Genesee Valley Club’s late-Nov. Open at Rochester went to Buffalo’s Jim Dixon over Mike Ezzo, 19 in the 4^th.            Ezzo, however, paired with Rick Covalciuc in the Doubles to defeat Norm Rose/John Spearman. Rose went down again in a tough 5-game Senior’s match to Charlie Burroughs. Tops in B and C Singles: Meadsville, PA’s Jim Mullen over his brother Gary. B Doubles: Joe Costanza and Tournament Director Walt Stephens, whom the Club was pushing for USTTA Vice-President via a write-in vote.   

Men’s winner at Montreal’s Centre Notre-dame de Grace’s late Nov. tournament was Derek Wall over Alain Thomas with whom he paired in Doubles to defeat Sol Schiff/Howie Ornstein. Alain’s from Le Mans, France, and has committed to teaching two years at the Toronto French School—this as a new alternative in France for those who prefer overseas teaching to National Service. Denise Hunnius won the Women’s from Marie Bouchard but lost the Mixed with Wall to Shirley Gero and Ivan Csillag, reportedly “the Israeli champion, now living in Montreal.” Shirley, who has the potential to be a Canadian Closed Champion, is a 10^th grade scholarship student at the scholastically acclaimed Wagar High School in Montreal.

            It was Wall again at the Sherbrooke, Quebec Open—this time a triple winner. On these slow tables (with a maximum of only 4 in play) he beat Ron Chapman in 5 in the Singles; teamed with Thomas to take the Men’s Doubles from Csillag/Sam Matossian; and scored with Hunnius in the Mixed over Csillag/Gero. Denise’s husband, John, the CTTA President for some years, had just bested the competition to be named President of the Canadian Amateur Sports Federation, and now, holding down two important positions, surely won’t have much time for anything else. Denise, too, showed she’s strong-minded—persevering in the final of the Women’s from two games down to win the 3^rd at 19 and go on to easily defeat Bouchard who in the semi’s had escaped Shirley Gero, 19 in the 5^th.

            Wall does get around. He held a t.t. workshop (attracting nearly 100 people) and gave an exhibition at the New Brunswick Centennial Winter Games. In the accompanying tournament (embarrassingly, a mere 15 entries) Derek’s exhibition partner, C.Y. Yang, won the Men’s from Guy Martin. Doubles winners were CTTA V-P for New Brunswick Don Barnett and Peter Hedges.

           

Eastern Open

            The 37^th (1968) Eastern Open Table Tennis Championships, held annually since 1932 (the American Ping-Pong Association also ran a couple of Eastern’s, in 1933 and ’34), was played Jan. 21-22 at Philadelphia’s Fairmount Park Memorial Hall. Everyone’s favorite, #1 seed D-J Lee, didn’t make the tournament. Reportedly, he didn’t get his pre-scheduled match-time card in the mail, hence wasn’t sure he was entered or not, and didn’t want to risk coming all that way for nothing. Just wasn’t anybody he could call, huh? More believable (see Jack Carr’s Jan. 22, 1968 letter to the E.C. and others) is that neither D-J nor Bong Mo Lee attended “because their entries were refused by the tournament committee since the entry money did not accompany the entry blank.” Apparently, 20 entries that came in late were also refused, their entry fees returned.

Sol Schiff, according to Carr, was involved in a controversy. Robert “Robbie” Robinson, the Center City Club President, Cyril Lederman, the Referee, and Marty Weinstein (asserting himself as the Tournament Chair) all told Jack and Graham Steenhoven that Sol had originally agreed to supply the trophies. However, when two weeks before the tournament Sol heard that Jimmy McClure was going to donate the balls, there was a problem. Sol said that he couldn’t give the trophies at his “usual” price (which included the engraving that Sol himself did) but would have to charge what other companies would. In response, Weinstein said he told Sol they were going to accept Jimmy’s ball offer and would go elsewhere for the trophies.

But in such a short time where were they going to go to get the price that Schiff, had he not been perhaps rightly miffed, would have charged, so they decided, though this was traditionally a very prestigious tournament, to get medals instead of trophies. When Schiff heard that, he withdrew from the tournament. That is, he later insisted, he withdrew only from Singles, not Doubles. Weinstein, however, though admitting Sol’s entry fees had been paid, his check cashed, would not let him play Doubles. Robinson and Lederman said they’d allow Steenhoven and Carr to overrule the Weinstein Tournament Committee, but Jack, Graham, and Rufford Harrison who, because his wife had severely burned herself, was only intermittently on the scene, concluded there was no rule allowing E.C. members to do this.

Schiff himself had a different version to tell Carr. According to Jack, Weinstein had approached Sol “with a proposed price for the trophies.” But Sol said “he could not meet that price for the Eastern’s, feeling that such an important tournament warranted better trophies.” Well then, what would Schiff charge? Sol “gave a rough figure but said that it was not definite,” he’d get back to Marty. But Sol wanted a package deal, would supply “both trophies and balls, as had been their past practice.” Schiff also said that in a telephone conversation Weinstein “had agreed to place Schiff’s ad in the program and that Schiff would pay him at the tournament site. The ad was not in the program.”    

After the Men’s event, which Gusikoff won, Carr said that Bobby, on being given not the trophy “as contracted on the entry blank” but this disappointing medal, “complained bitterly” to him. Said something like, “Probably this’ll be the last Eastern’s I’ll ever win. How do I explain this little thing to my wife?”

I’ll pick up the thrilling highlights of the Men’s shortly, but first a summary of the other winners. In early play in the Women’s, New Yorker Shazzi Felstein, U.S. # 16 last season, had Violetta Nesukaitis down 17-10 in the 1st before losing 21-18…then, before having to give it up, was 22-all with her in the 2^nd. However, thereafter in her matches, Nesukaitis, winning with straight-game ease, seemed a whole class above Bernice Chotras in the semi’s (notice a little grimace or two of disgust from Bernice, do you?) and Connie Sweeris in the final. Violetta also won the Women’s Doubles—teaming with Barbara Kaminsky to defeat Chotras/Sweeris. Mixed winners were the Sweerises, but, down 2-1 in the final, they had to rally to beat Hirschkowitz/Kaminsky. Men’s Doubles went to Tannehill/Sweeris over Bukiet/Sakai.

Other winners: Men’s A’s: Alex Shiroky over New England #1 Lem Kuusk. Women’s A’s: Marianne Szalay with successive wins—over Felstein, Sue Wright, and Gloria Amoury in the final. A Doubles: Bill Sharpe/Marty Theil over Mike Lieberman/Sid Jacobs who’d survived 24-22-in-the-3^rd matches against Al Nochenson/Nate Stokes and Dan LeBaron/Ralph Stadelman. B’s: Elmer Wengert over Steve Rigo. Consolation’s: Theil, 19 in the 3^rd, over Bob Kaminsky and Danny Banach in the final, after Marty’d had a slight misunderstanding with some security guards. Esquire’s: Bill Cross over Jimmy Verta. Senior’s: Cross over Stokes who upset National Champ Lenny Klein. Senior Doubles: Bukiet/Fran Delaney over Cross/John Nesukaitis.

Dell Sweeris, assisted by Jack Carr, held an hour clinic for 26 Juniors at this tournament. Those benefiting from work on what Jack said Dell focused on, the “Japanese-type forehand drive,” were no doubt some of the following finalists. Boys Under 17: Tannehill over LeBaron. Girls Under 17: Nesukaitis over Alice Green. Under 17 Doubles: Tannehill/LeBaron over Eli Koulis/Charlie Freund. A highly erratic, enthusiastic match in this event between young David and Scott Rubenstein (sons of Marty and Lona Flam Rubenstein) and Bruce Weinstein and Larry Shiller…with David in tears and Bruce near fainting. Boys Under 15: Richard Nochenson, 19, -21, 13, -21, 19 in the semi’s over Rich LeBaron, and in 4 over Mitch Sealtiel in the final. Carr said that Nochenson told his father he couldn’t have won without Jack’s post-clinic individual instruction. Boys Under 13: Rumble over Weinstein.

Carr said in that Jan. letter to the E.C. that young Weinstein, accompanied by his father, had attended an Amateur Table Tennis Association (ATTA) Percy Rochester clinic in Philadelphia a week earlier. This Association was just for Juniors. Marty was impressed by the “television, radio and newspaper coverage,” by the turnout of “30 boys” (most of whom were “beginners”), and by Rochester’s ability to coach.

Percy, abetted where possible by his AAU connections, was said to visit “the areas the USTTA has not touched, such as undeveloped and underprivileged regions.” Since the ATTA was strictly an amateur organization, Percy said it could never merge with the USTTA since our Association allows professional players. However, because the ATTA was getting the kids interested, “the USTTA will reap the ATTA endeavors in the long run.” This I’m sure History will record as wishful thinking. Would, though, that the USTTA could give Rochester, who in seeking to help kids with table tennis and so affirm his own identity, an Award as an acknowledgement of his efforts. But maybe he wouldn’t accept it, for he’d become as discontent with our Association as former President Herman Prescott.

            O.K., now finally to the Men’s event—there, two of the best matches involved Tannehill. In the 8^th’s, he had to go 5 to advance past Vic Landau, then met Harry Hirschkowitz who somewhat surprisingly had been established as a 2-1 favorite. So well was John hitting out and beautifully dropping the ball that he had the New Yorker almost beaten—was up 2-0 and up in the 3^rd. At which time I remember a guy from behind me saying to another, “I don’t think you know what’s happening out there. Harry’s playing a negative game. There’s no way for him to win a point.” Some 200 stiff chops and nothing balls later, Harry, with a 9-6 lead in the 5^th, gave John one of his long, baleful, I-know-you-can’t-win stares, and it was all over. Whatever Harry had started doing to the ball John couldn’t read and lost confidence.

            Eventually the event narrowed down to an all-Eastern semifinal: Hirschkowitz against Bukiet who, up 2-0, had held on, 23-21 in the 3^rd, against Sweeris; and Gusikoff against the easy-going, gum-chewing Larry Folk who, to almost everyone’s surprise and his own chuckling amusement, had overcome David Sakai’s steady but not powerful loop attack through a combination of pimpled rubber forehand chops and (since Dave couldn’t push this kind of spin well) one ball, point-ending hits. 

            The match between Bukiet and Hirschkowitz begins as expected: Bernie stays at the table, rolls, drops, rolls, drops. (“Nobody ever times matches in this country,” says a spectator.) But then with games 1-1 the pace quickens. Bernie, indefatigable, is hitting out hard now again and again while Harry is chopping and lobbing from all over court, criss-crossing, arcing all reachable space. Stop! Time for the Rule. Expedite? Expedite what? Neither Bukiet not Hirschkowitz have played better in years. The match couldn’t be more exciting.

            No matter—the 3^rd game continues as before: Bernie strategically holds the offense regardless of serve. Back and forth points are traded until, with the score 19-all, the umpire calls Fault!—Bernie’s foot has just moved the table. Point for Harry.

            Bernie does not like this call, does not like the umpire, perhaps has not liked him before. Words are exchanged. Harry is given the ball, and serves. Bernie in anger doesn’t even look, just swats the ball away as hard as he can—only, miraculously, on its tracer-like way to the stands, it hits Harry’s side of the table! What the…Deuce! Point to Bukiet.

            The crowd goes wild. It’s the greatest shot they’ve ever seen. Harry impulsively rounds the table, a funny ironic smile on his face, and shakes hands with Bernie. Play continues, but there’s no chance now Bernie is going to give up this game—the madness has left him. Harry, however, seems paralyzed—loses the next two points easily. And now the match is no longer a match. At the 4^th-game end, Bernie comes over to shake Harry’s hand. Harry waves him away; he’s been sportsman enough.

            The other semi’s, between Gusikoff and last year’s U.S. #24 Folk, is something of a joke, is it? One observer after another gives Larry little chance. When, however, he wins the 1^st game at 15 and takes an early lead in the 2^nd, an upset looks to be in the making. Then Gusikoff (“What am I doing here? Am I going crazy?”) quits flailing away at the ball, finds the pattern of rolling to the forehand side, and evens the set.

            In the 3^rd game the match is anything but a joke—the score’s 18-19 with Larry serving. Up goes the ball…now the oomphed sidespin stroke…and, oh, oh, whiff! Again, up goes the ball…again the sidespin, to be made more vicious this time…and whiff! “This is embarrassing,” says Folk, who of course after that can’t regroup.

            To many, the final match seems something of a gamble. Why bet on the outcome? When Bobby is good, he’s very good, but Bernie is always steady.

            Gusikoff wins the 1^st at 17, and at 13-all in the 2^nd Bernie’s in trouble, can’t let this game get away from him. But, having been visibly troubled for the last few points, Bobby now stops play and wants to know who’s whistling. Whistling? No one is whistling. It’s Bernie’s shoes—they’re squeaking. Another point. Squeak. Squeak. The audience titters. “What is this?” Bobby says to Bernie. “You weren’t making noise the first game.” Another point. SQUEAK. SQUEAK. The audience begins to laugh. “Don’t think about it, Bobby” shouts a voice from the gallery. SQUEAK. SQUEAK. Surprisingly, Gusikoff settles down to win. “Squeak,” he says to Bernie as the game point ends.*

            In the 3^rd, Bobby has Bernie 11-4. In the 3^rd, Bernie has Bobby 14-12! Is that possible? Now, since the tournament Program says Gusikoff  “fatigues and loses his touch in the long ones,” who’s the favorite? But Bobby lasts just long enough to put together a string of staccato shots and, despite Bernie’s rock-like returns on being match-point down, gets one final one through him and ends this somewhat dizzying tournament by pirouetting table-top high, hands up to heaven.

            It is Bobby’s last chance at the Eastern’s. In ’69, ’70, ’71, ’72, and ’73, the Men’s winner, his entry accepted, will be D-J Lee.

 

SELECTED NOTES.

            *Readers of Vol. III will recall (see pages 299-300) that in the final of the Dec., 1958 Connecticut Open, Bukiet had won the first two games from Reisman, then had lost the next two, then, when Marty objected to Bernie’s tactic of suddenly squeaking his sneakers, Bukiet defaulted—and Reisman was vilified, judged to be using a ploy on Bernie!